Comparing Christmas in NY and London

I was stunned at how much London goes all out for Christmas and 2009 is not any different. We have our M&S ads working overtime, our mince pie sales shooting up and the sales start in under two weeks. Recession be darned, we need to compete with that New York extravangenza. This year, I wondered - honestly what city represented more 'holiday cheer'?

SKATING

NY - Rockefeller Centre: It's one of the biggest frozen ice rinks. You actually have space to skate. But oddly enough there's a huge fountain that still has running water. Shouldn't that be frozen?. There are 'packages' including breakfast skates with Santa. (But if you're into Santa....)

London - Somerset House: You're skating under a heritage building, steps away from the Thames but with loads of privacy. There's a Tiffany's tuck shop where you can get jewellery and champagne. If you're looking for a 'Holly Golightly experience' this could be a dream for you.

London wins - it just seems classier and a little bit more personal (maybe it's the word 'tuck' that has me convinced)

THE STREET

London - Oxford Street: Every year, a movie sponsors the street and the lighting is just crazy. However at either end the lighting is representative of the movie (This year it's Jim Carrey's a Christmas Carol). The street is crowded (except for this weekend when they close it down to traffic) but definitely decked out. Big bobbles, men in stilts and Santa walk down the street. It's actually kinda creepy.

New York - Bloomingdales/Macys/Saks Fifth Avenue: So there isn't a street of lights, but each of these department stores deck out their window displays. From snowflakes to fashion to just a lot of brands in a festive environment - the shop keeps you warm while you shop (and there's no need to go to another store). It's pretty isolated but really don't you just want to quickly finish your shopping (if you have to do any) so you can have fun doing all your holiday traditions.

New York wins - because they clearly have dealt with tourist crowds by having malls. No going outside in the miserable rain. No double decker buses to run into you when you're trying to get between Topshop and H&M. And it's actually less commercial (no sponsorship of an entire street!)

THE TREE

London - Trafalgar Square: Lit by the Norwegian Prime Minister (as Norway gives the city the tree as thanks for WWII). Between the plinths of the great warriors (not very Christmassy), it is one of the tourist centres of London. But the tree does get lost as it doesn't have too many lights and Norwegian pine is taller rather than broad.

New York - Rockefeller Centre: The tree is absolutely massive. It's beautifully lit in golds and really the lighting process itself is a production. Aretha Franklin this year - ok I'll see her! But again with Rockefeller - shouldn't they mix it up a bit - spread the tourists out....?

London wins: Because Christmas is about giving, and that's how we got the tree.

So in this comparison - London wins. I probably would have said that before I started. It may be a personal bias (I do live in London). Thoughts, additions to the comparison?

Image of 'Skate at Somerset House' via